Messages in this thread |  | | | Date | Tue, 22 Jan 2002 23:19:50 +0300 | | From | Hans Reiser <> | | Subject | Re: Possible Idea with filesystem buffering. |
| |
Andrew Morton wrote:
>Hans Reiser wrote: > >>So is there a consensus view that we need 2 calls, one to write a >>particular page, and one to exert memory pressure, and the call to write >>a particular page should only be used when we really need to write that >>particular page? >> > >Note that writepage() doesn't get used much. Most VM-initiated >filesystem writeback activity is via try_to_release_page(), which >has somewhat more vague and flexible semantics. > >And by bdflush, which I suspect tends to conflict with sync_page_buffers() >under pressure. But that's a different problem. > >- > > So the problem is that there is no coherently architected VM-to-FS interface that has been articulated, and we need one.
So far we can identify that we need something to pressure the FS, and something to ask for a particular page.
It might be desirable to pressure the FS more than one page aging at a time for reasons of performance as Rik pointed out.
Any other design considerations?
- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
|  |